Separating immigrant families and imprisoning children

[rogue06]

Who apart from Trump should conservatively- inclined people who are unhappy with the failures of the Republicans have voted for?

There were several candidates during the primaries who were also Washington outsiders but they tended to drop out fairly quickly like Walker, Pataki, Jindal, Gilmore and Fiorina. There was also Carson and to a lesser extent Rand Paul.

Trump seems to be working on the main issues he campaigned on, things like immigration, American jobs, trade etc - the whole MAGA idea. It's unfair and unrealistic to chide people for voting for someone who they felt would address issues they cared about.

To be fair there was no way to know if he would actually work on the things he campaigned for until after he was in office, or would he be like your typical politician from either party and ignore much if not most of his campaign promises as nothing more than rhetoric needed to win. I'm reminded of the notorious line from George Stephanopoulos that his boss Bill Clinton "has kept all of the promises he intended to keep."

Citing incidences where Obama did similar things to what Trump is doing is not deflection when people who support Obama criticize Trump for doing what Obama also did.

Exactly. There is nothing "deflective" about pointing out rank hypocrisy of those complaining about something.

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm not trying to prove anything to you seer. To me its obvious. But if there were proof impeachment proceedings would have begun (maybe - there seems no end to what the GOP will tolerate from him to retain power). I'm pretty cynical of him, I will have to admit. I was no fan of the Clintons for similar reasons - but at the same time DT just takes it all to a whole new level.

Have you ever been the target of a bully that can schmooze it with the teachers and the kids he wants on his side? That's who Trump is. And the Christian community is who he's schmoozing. And I just can't fathom why so many otherwise moral and upright people have been led down the primrose path by him. Mostly all I can do is stand back, shake my head and watch. But every now and again I try to wake up the sleepers. Usually not with much success.

[rogue06]

The incompetent government wouldn't need to resort to DNA testing if they had kept basic records. As it stands now they have lost around 3,000 kids...they don't even know exactly how many.

It's not so much to do with keeping records but the fact that a significant percent didn't come into the country with their parents but came unaccompanied except with Coyotaje who quickly claimed to be parents when they were apprehended. DNA tests are being used to make sure that they are being given over to their actual parents.

[JimL]

"farce of their personal faith". I know personally several of the folks you here imply that their faith is a 'farce' - and you are dead wrong. Having faith and trying to live according to the high moral standard of Scripture is no simple task. Just because you have chosen to ditch the whole thing does not give you the right to criticize those that do at least try. It's not unlike the fat guy on the couch incapable of riding 5 miles without having a heart attack ripping apart the cyclist in the Tour de France that gets dropped by the Peloton.

That not a fair analogy at all. I didn't renounce christianity because i couldn't handle it, i renounced it because i grew up and stopped believing in fairy tales. Btw, I stopped believing in Santa Clauss too.

I personally did not vote for trump and speak out against him here especially to those of faith that have somehow found a blind spot when it comes to the elements they prioritize that allow them to overlook his issues. Nevertheless, there is no 'farce'. And you'd best be careful lest your own hypocrisies find you out. The world and life in general present us with a myriad of conflicting priorities and morals - and VERY few are able to actually sort through them without some element of hypocrisy driving their solutions to them.

If the christian right, the so called moral majority, are going to claim their moral superiority, which they do, then they are going to have to act the part, otherwise I have no qualms about calling them out on it.,

[demi-conservative]

Considering that it is hardly uncommon to separate the parents from their children when the parents break the law this looks like a whole lot of selective outrage.

Libs in full TDS still don't want to admit obvious fact, separation is common. Dishonest!

[Charles]

A) That's called argument by weblink, and is against forum rules.
2) It would be a whole lot better if you would use the quote function, because it APPEARS you are indicating this post....

You asked for an example and I provide one. I was, as you correctly pointed to, using MM's post as an example. It would be interesting to quote it again:

I think anybody pursuing this line of argument needs to first show where in Bible it says we should turn a blind eye to lawbreakers, because that's the crux of the matter. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and these people are suffering the consequences of their lawlessness. The Bible says that even one who steals to satisfy a need should pay restitution if caught, even to the point of losing everything he owns.

And then you go on to claim:

...which doesn't even come close to supporting your assertion that people are 'using their Christianity' to... whatever it is you're trying to assert. MM is obviously talking about people who break the law, and suffer the consequences.

I simply don't see how you can try to make that case. MM was responding to the fact that Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, says Trump's migrant children policy is anti-Christian. So MM is responding to the words of a Christian who is clearly against Trump's migrant children policy (as it was at that time at least). MM is making the case that this is not a line of thinking that a Christian will have to follow.

MM is even giving quotes from the Bible to support being harsh to those who break the law "The Bible says that even one who steals to satisfy a need should pay restitution if caught, even to the point of losing everything he owns." (What MM says there is actually both manipulated and wrong but more on that later on) So MM is clearly using his understanding of the Bible to contradict someone saying Trump's imigrant children policy is anti-Christian. So he is trying to say it does not contradict but is in line with a Christian worldview. The idea that he only supports the idea that people who break the law should be held accountable is absurd given the fact that those who disagree with Trump's policy, including Samuel Rodriguez, points to the obvious consequences for the children when the parents are held accountable in this way and form. Many other approaches could have been followed but those who try to present this as "very complex" tend to be very narrowminded when it comes to thinking in posibilities of keeping children and parents together under reasonable conditions.

By the way I think MM once again managed to misunderstand the point in the quote he used to support his harsh and inhuman line. Lets read the verses he only partly quoted in his text:

Proverbs 6:30-31 English Standard Version (ESV)
30 People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry,
31 but if he is caught, he will pay sevenfold; he will give all the goods of his house.

MM conveniently skipped to first part: "People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry," It is extremely relevant in these cases since we are talking about people in severe need escaping tragic situations. But he did not want to include the part pointing to the obvious fact that, of course, any reasonable person will bear with someone who steals because he has got nothing to eat. And I think it is rather obvious that he missed the point in the line he actually did use. The way he uses it clearly contradicts Proverbs 6:30 (the first line). What is meant by "caught" in 31 is rather to be caught as actually having enough food and thus having no need to steal to satisfy the hunger. If you interpret it in the MM way you are confronted with a contradiction.

So, MM did use his understanding of Christianity to support the separation of children from their parents and in doing so he managed to support it with an obviously mistaken interpretation of Proverbs 6:30-31. But then again, as I said and will willingly repeat, those who support the separation of children from their parents under these conditions are not really Christian.

For all those of you who are so concerned with the fact that the immigrants are criminal I will repeat the part that MM left out:

People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry

[Cow Poke]

You asked for an example and I provide one. I was, as you correctly pointed to, using MM's post as an example. It would be interesting to quote it again:



And then you go on to claim:

Here's where I came in on this, after you made the statement...

Or perhaps I am protecting Christianity from those who like to call themselves Christian but in doing so actually misuse the title... I agree with those who claim that the actions of evangelicals in this case has caused a such a great deal of harm to their credibility that it is hard to imagine how anyone from the outside could have done greater harm to them. I am not a Christian but I still don't like to see it being used for justifying the unjust.

It took quite a bit of pulling, but it appears you finally admitted in this post that you have a battle with MM.

I'll leave you two to it.

[Charles]

Here's where I came in on this, after you made the statement...



It took quite a bit of pulling, but it appears you finally admitted in this post that you have a battle with MM.

I'll leave you two to it.

Wow. That was a weak reply.

So many points and then you try to write it all of with some sort of understanding that this is only a battle between me and MM. I adress quite many points from your side but of course it is easier to make it seem as if that is not what it is about if you have got no good reply.

I used MM's post as an example, but there are so many Christians in here supporting Trumps policies on this area. Outside this forum you have Jeff Sessions quoting Romans 13 to support his inhuman line of politics and people on this forum have tried to make it seem as if that was not too bad after all. So this is not a battle I have with one person but with all those who call themselves Christians and still support Trump on his policies on this area. I reserve the right to say that they are not Christians.

[Charles]

Some news updates on the OP topic...

:


Man with history of sex crimes working at Kansas shelter for unaccompanied migrant children:


Immigrant children say they were beaten, kept naked in cells and tied to chairs at center:


Trump's America continues to swirl down the toilet...

Those responsible for and supporting this are the real criminals.

[Cow Poke]

Wow. That was a weak reply.

I thought you were painting all Christians with a broad brush - it came down to you having a battle with MM. I'll leave you to that.

So many points and then you try to write it all of with some sort of understanding that this is only a battle between me and MM. I adress quite many points from your side but of course it is easier to make it seem as if that is not what it is about if you have got no good reply.

I used MM's post as an example, but there are so many Christians in here supporting Trumps policies on this area. Outside this forum you have Jeff Sessions quoting Romans 13 to support his inhuman line of politics and people on this forum have tried to make it seem as if that was not too bad after all. So this is not a battle I have with one person but with all those who call themselves Christians and still support Trump on his policies on this area. I reserve the right to say that they are not Christians.

I'll be happy to handle anything you want to address to me, Charles, but I'm not MM's spokesperson.

[KingsGambit]

Who apart from Trump should conservatively- inclined people who are unhappy with the failures of the Republicans have voted for?

Trump seems to be working on the main issues he campaigned on, things like immigration, American jobs, trade etc - the whole MAGA idea. It's unfair and unrealistic to chide people for voting for someone who they felt would address issues they cared about.

Citing incidences where Obama did similar things to what Trump is doing is not deflection when people who support Obama criticize Trump for doing what Obama also did.

With all due respect, did you read my post? I'm not chiding anybody for their vote. I'm discussing what Trump is doing now, nearly two years after the election, and asking voters to judge him based on what he has done post-election. This is relevant as the time would be now for a potential primary challenger to set up a campaign (and for Trump to consider his own re-election campaign). He has already been elected, so it is no longer relevant what Obama or Clinton or Jimmy Carter or anybody else would have done.

[lilpixieofterror]

With all due respect, did you read my post? I'm not chiding anybody for their vote. I'm discussing what Trump is doing now, nearly two years after the election, and asking voters to judge him based on what he has done post-election. This is relevant as the time would be now for a potential primary challenger to set up a campaign (and for Trump to consider his own re-election campaign). He has already been elected, so it is no longer relevant what Obama or Clinton or Jimmy Carter or anybody else would have done.

[Tassman]

It's not so much to do with keeping records but the fact that a significant percent didn't come into the country with their parents but came unaccompanied except with Coyotaje who quickly claimed to be parents when they were apprehended. DNA tests are being used to make sure that they are being given over to their actual parents.

This is simply not the case. No one is disputing that the majority of the children were separated from their parents at the Mexican border. It was administration policy to do exactly this...as a deterrent. They said so.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, I see you bought into the Pocahontas lie!

dna.jpg

It was so clever of Chuck Grassley to anticipate this very thing two years ago and come up with a "cover story"....

[Tassman]

Ah, I see you bought into the Pocahontas lie!

"Pocahontas"!!! http://time.com/5331094/some-3000-mi...to-match-them/

It was so clever of Chuck Grassley to anticipate this very thing two years ago.......snipped.

Irrelevant deflection!